All you’d have to do to make it much more readable is separate the time and the year with some kind of separator like a hyphen, slash or dot. Also “Z” is the time zone, denoting UTC (see also military time zones)

So virtually human unreadable and the letters make machine readability a pain in the ass?

Lol same. I think it’s probably because commenting is more like normal conversation; you’re responding to other people in ways that are specifically meaningful to the circumstances. Writing is sorta like talking to the void in my mind. I find I spend much more time thinking and checking and re-reading to make sure I’m appealing to my imagined audience, rather than just contributing a sentence or two to a conversation where the audience is a bit more concrete.

Copyright gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to modify the work, to use the work for commercial purposes, and attribution rights. The use of a work as training data constitutes using a work for commercial purposes since the companies building these models are distributing licencing them for profit. I think it would be a marginal argument to say that the output of these models constitutes copyright infringement on the basis of modification, but worth arguing nonetheless. Copyright does only protect a work up to a certain, indefinable amount of modification, but some of the outputs would certainly constitute infringement in any other situation. And these AI companies would probably find it nigh impossible to disclose specifically who the data came from.

Nobody has been able to make a convincing argument in favour of generative AI. Sure, it’s a tool for creating art. It abstracts the art making process away so that the barrier to entry is low enough that anyone can use it regardless of skill. A lot of people have used these arguments to argue for these tools, and some artists argue that because it takes no skill it is bad. I think that’s beside the point. These models have been trained on data that is, in my opinion, both unethical and unlawful. They have not been able to conclusively demonstrate that the data was acquired and used in line with copyright law. That leads to the second, more powerful argument: they are using the labour of artists without any form of compensation, recognition, permission, or credit.

If, somehow, the tools could come up with their own styles and ideas then it should be perfectly fine to use them. But until that happens (it won’t, nobody will see unintended changes in AI as anything other than mistakes because it has no demonstrable intent) use of a generative AI should be seen as plagiarism or copyright infringement.

Farken oath mate, I hear what you’re farken sayin. These cunts have no bloody idea and they make us all look like wankers. Shits me to tears.

Red mist

Is this how we make minus 196?

You didn’t have to preface “cross check” with “In Canada”.

Yes, but they’re calling it a “Stanley cup”

Yeah, Macs are apple computers. I probably should’ve phrased it that way. Anyway, given that you’re not deep in the Apple ecosystem, it will be easier to switch to android.

Do you use an apple computer?

I always thought that he meant “it’s not that deep guys, they’re just silly”

deleted by creator

Had to do a double take when I read Jindabyne. Nobody ever mentions Jindy online

It’s Spring here in Australia and instead of the nice spring weather it’s gone straight to summer weather (including fires). We’re so fucked

It’s way more privacy-oriented, but a lot of Reddit communities were already very left wing

This you?

“Oh, but the stock supra had no power. It’s not fair to compare it to .” That was the point you nitwits, it was supposed to be modded.